Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Esquivalience (talk · contribs) 20:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this. A first note however: the citations' page numbering is inconsistent. Sometimes the page abbreviation "p." has a space between it and the page number (e.g., "p. 27") and sometimes it does not (e.g., "p.109"). Ref 6's page number has no "p." before it. Esquivalience (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a mismatch with the templates. For the reference currently numbered 6, it is using {{cite journal}} with the page parameter. I'm not sure if there's a possible fix, other than possibly taking every inline reference and converting them to using {{sfn}} (which Redrose64 has already had a go at elsewhere). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That was part of it. I also added a lot of missing spaces. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the way those citations to The Engineer are formatted (that's not to criticise any tweaks you've recently done of them, but just the fact they are bare links rather than templates), but I can't think of a simple and obvious way of tackling them, and without grabbing another book covering the same timeframe, they are the only source available to verify some of the technical aspects of the original station. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

They can be reformatted like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Referencing is fine; no redundant lead refs already covered in the body. Meets WP:LEAD, although the lead can be expanded with some more historical information.

Interesting, because I took the reverse view in this edit while improving the article, as I thought the lead was too long for an article of this size. For a 26K prose article, about 3 paragraphs of lead should suffice, so I guess we can pop a few extra things in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• By 1895 it had the largest number of platforms on any terminal railway station in London. - Not grammatically necessary as a short prepositional phrase, but to be consistent, perhaps you should insert a comma after "By 1895" (other similar phrases in the article include the comma)

The main point of reference I have for this is Talk:Mersea Island/GA1, where I had a dispute over the level of commas, and came away with the impression that perhaps it's a UK / US English thing. I see @Boson: made a comment on that GA review, so perhaps he can follow suit here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that was mainly about supplementary/restrictive relative clauses, where there is, indeed, a significant difference in British and English usage. I think the use of a comma following a short, introductory prepositional phrase (like "By 1895") is, to a great extent, a matter of personal style, though I agree that the appearance of inconsistency should be avoided. My personal impression is that more attention may be given to consistency in American writing, while slightly more weight is given to editorial judgement in British writing. There may be more checklist-like guides in the US, and some of these may give the impression that an introductory phrase should be followed by a comma, though OWL ( https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/03/ ) suggests not using a comma after "a brief prepositional phrase. (Is it a single phrase of fewer than five words?)". I would also tend to omit the comma, especially when the prepositional phrase is an essential part of the clause. On the other hand, I can see the point of using a comma directly before a noun in "In 1865, plans included a circa 1-mile (1.6 km) long line ..." to avoid temporarily misleading the reader into parsing 1865 as the number of plans. So I would, personally, leave those two examples as they are, but I would remove the comma from "In 1912, around 200,000 passengers used the station ...", where there is no ambiguity. I'm not sure if I would give the same answer tomorrow. --Boson (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• During the First World War, Liverpool Street was attacked by a daylight air raid, killing 162 people. - The section on the raid lacks any detail on the specific time the station was attacked, yet the lead states that the raid was committed in daylight.

This probably arises from the Strategic Studies Institute source, which says One scored a direct hit on a school, killing or wounding 46 young children, which implies it must have happened during school hours. However, since the body doesn't mention this, the lead shouldn't either. I've copyedited the sentence to make it a bit punchier. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the build-up to the Second World War the station served as the entry point for thousands of child refugees arriving in London as part of the Kindertransport rescue mission. - insert a comma after "In the build-up to the Second World War".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• A station opened in 1875 for the Metropolitan Railway ... - what station? It appears that the station was served by the Metropolitan Railway, so maybe this sentence meant to say that the Metropolitan Railway began serving this station in 1875?

I've clarified this with "tube station"; I assumed from the context of the previous sentence that this was talking about the Underground. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I will review the rest later. Esquivalience (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Esquivalience: Any news? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Main line station

Apologies for the delay; here are the rest:

• Most passenger services on the Great Eastern Main Line are operated by Greater Anglia, but since May 2015 the Shenfield "metro" route to Shenfield is controlled by TfL Rail and the Lea Valley Lines to Enfield Town, Cheshunt (via Seven Sisters) and Chingford are operated by London Overground; a small number of late evening services operated by c2c run to Barking and Grays. - too long

Split into multiple sentences. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• When referring to the station, the article sometimes includes "station" after Liverpool Street ("Liverpool Street station") and sometimes omits it (just "Liverpool Street"). What exactly dictates when "station" should be included or excluded?

I've gone through and tidied things up; basically if it's obvious from context that the sentence is talking about the station, I've used "Liverpool Street". The few times "station" is appended are now - first mention in the lead, image captions, or where it might be ambiguous that the prose is talking about the station, the tube station or the street. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• The main station was extended about 230 ft (70 m) eastwards; additional shops and offices were constructed east of the new train shed up to the parish boundary with Bishopsgate-Street Without. A new roof was built with four longitudinally aligned arched inner ones; the outer set were about 51 ft (16 m) wide, and the inner ones about 42 ft (13 m) wide. These were set on 13 sets of piers spaced 30 ft (9.1 m) apart, plus an 87 ft (27 m) roof at right angles over the "circulating area" at the buffer stop end of the station. - per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, did the surveyors get the distance wrong or was it just imprecise? And the piers and roofs are measured accurately?

I've been unsure about this section for some time, although it's all reliably sourced, I've checked some other book sources about the station since I originally started work on it, and there isn't as much information, so I've trimmed it down and bolstered it with another source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Some prepositional phrases at the start of a sentence in the article omit a comma ("At the north end of the station roof a parcels office was built over the tracks") and include it ("By the turn of the 20th century, Liverpool Street had one of the most extensive suburban rail services in London"). Yet there is no clear, consistent implicit "guideline" dictating whether a comma should be included. Both propositional phrases in the example sentences have the same number of words.

See Boson's commment above; I think it's just a judgement call on the readability of any particular bit of prose. I'll have a read through the whole article again and get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• The four train shed roofs were carried out by Messrs. Handyside and Co., supervised by a Mr Sherlock, the resident engineer; all the foundations, earthwork and brickwork were carried out by Mowlem & Co; the ironwork of the parcels office was carried out by Head Wrightson, about 620 long tons (630 t) of cast iron was used for columns, stanchions and accessories, and 1,230 long tons (1,250 t) of wrought iron for box and plate girders. - good candidate for converting to active voice, and did the various companies merely provided the materials or actually built the parts attributed to them ("carried out" is vague). Also, this sentence is too long.

See above - I've pretty much bulldozed this section down to a more manageable size, so this issue should be moot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I feel that the expansion section pays too much detail to the dimensions and other measures of the expansion.

As above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• injured 432 -> injuring

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Progress had been halted by the war but was given a high priority after the end of hostilities. - was "progress" being given high priority or the actual electrification project?

Changed to "Progress had been halted by the war but work resumed after the end of hostilities". Given the importance of the line to Shenfield as a commuter route, and that electrification had happened by 1949, it seems they just wanted to get on with the job. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Railway work included the construction of a chord from the North London Line to the Cambridge main line - not sure what a chord is

  Linked to chord (geometry), which has a definition. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  It's the wrong definition. In geom, a chord is a straight line connecting two points on a curve; but in railway terminology, a chord is always a curve connecting two otherwise-unconnected rail lines that lie at tangents to that curve - usually the two rail lines are straight, one being at a higher level than the other. So on this RCH junction diagram, the lower-right quarter shows a green line crossing over a red line; the curved connection between them (marked "32 c") is a chord. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  While I have no doubt what you are saying is absolutely correct, (I believe there is a similar example between the Ascot to Guildford line and the Alton Line near Ash Vale) without a reliable source saying all that, how can we resolve the issue here? I'd quite like to create chord (railway) as it's obviously a recognised term in the rail industry, and has numerous examples such as the Ordsall Chord. In the meantime, I've gone for the more colloquial, if less technically accurate, "short link" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Underground station

• In common with other tube stations serving main line termini - not sure what this means. If this is referring to termini, then there are a bunch of terminus stations within zone 5 or 6.

I've changed this to "Central London termini" - what I would define as a "terminus" in this context is a place where a line coming in from outside London stops before reaching the centre, includes Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, Cannon Street, Waterloo, Charing Cross and Victoria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Other criteria

The article heeds the basic MOS guidelines (1b). The article has a reference section, the reference list issues have been solved, and the references are reliable (2a, 2b). The article contains no information that seems like original research or overstating the sources, and the expansion section seems to be based on mainly primary sources, but there is likely no other reliable secondary source covering all the information and all of the information is very factual in nature anyways so I'll pass 2c. No copyright violations or plagiarism (2d). It addresses the station and its history (3a), although the expansion section has too much info regarding the dimensions and measures of the 1895 expansion. It is neutral, not to say that there is much opinion involved anyway (4). No major edit wars (5). All images are appropriately captioned and under a free license (6a, 6b).

@Esquivalience: Okay, I think those issues are addressed, anything else that needs looking at? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Finishing up this GA Review

@Ritchie333: I am finishing up this GA Review, but am more comfortable using the following template to check off the various GA Criteria. Shearonink (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Any possible prose/grammar/spelling issues were taken care of by the previous Review &the adjustments/corrections by the nominator at that time. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Factual, easy-to-understand timeline of events. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All the refs seem to be in agreement with each other so far as stylistic guidelines go but see 2B below. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The following references have issues:

   Ref #21 & #22 are not connecting, maybe thejc.com server is down.

   Ref #15 is broken.

   Ref #50 is broken/seems dead - I get a 403 result.

   Ref #6 is dead/page not found. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   I think your ref numbers are mixed up, but I did an audit on links and fixed five dead ones (either by adding an archive URL or swapping it for a book source), which I assume are these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   Sorry for any mistakes on my part. I went ahead and fixed one of the "website.thejfc.com" refs (#21 I think...) by adding an archive-url - that website seems to have gone dead or something...at any rate my search engine could not find "website.thejfc.com" . I also fixed a malformed ref that had two ref values (one of which was "none"). Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   ref=none is correct in that case - it was a source to The Engineer that ended up being removed from the trimming discussed earlier on this review. I have a nice script, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js, installed to my common.js, which throws up reference errors in large type so you can't miss them (in this case, "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFThe_Engineer1894e.") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   Hmmm...well, that's odd. Something about the "extra" ref was being redlinked as an error in the editing window so that's why I removed it. Shearonink (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyvio tool found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable, yay for no edit wars! Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Liverpool Street Station 1896.jpg is lacking a US public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   "The Descriptive Album of London" is a late 19th century publication, it's unquestionably out of copyright. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   I do understand that but Commons is now requiring an abundance of detailed/country PD tags on images. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This Review is On hold pending the various referencing issues in #2B and the public domain tag for the one image. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   I am doing a few more readthroughs to see if the article has any issues I might have missed. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   Pass. Congrats, it's a Good article. Shearonink (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

@Shearonink: That was quick - although to be fair I think a number of substantial issues were already fixed earlier. Anything else? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why it didn't seem fair to me to throw the article back in to the GA Review pool - its issues didn't seem all that overwhelming. Heh, of course, I still have to do some more proofreading-readthroughs so when I do those I could possibly catch some issues that need to be fixed... Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries - the review has been open for two months, another day or two isn't going to be an issue ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

How's this coming along

@Shearonink: How's this coming along? Do you think that the article is ready for GA status, now?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@3family6: I passed this article to GA status back on March 2nd... Legobot put the little green GA icon on it and everything. Since I didn't know if my Review would qualify as a full Review or would just give me 2 points like a GAR, I placed the GA Review page link onto my GA Cup Submissions page under a separate section Finishing up an abandoned GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the review, I just didn't know if this got passed. Thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I know there's rather a large amount of text on here, I just didn't feel right about throwing the article back in to the GA Review pool so the process would have to start all over again for the nominator. All's well that ends well, Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.